If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Welcome to the new PC Perspective forums! Have a look around and tell us what you think in our feedback forum. If you notice any bugs or style issues, please report them in this thread.

Re: Those "tolerant" liberals strike again!

Originally Posted by tucker

^^^ Carl Marx 2016 Campaign!!!!

UN-Friggin' believable!!!

"Change You Can Believe In"

Not surprised at all with the idiocy the Democratic party has now reached. I'll bet half of them thought he was a descendant of Groucho. Karl Marx could never win a Presidential election running as a Democrat anyway though. He's not black/latino/female. He'd have no chance with all of the Democratic voters that are not concerned with race but make their voting decisions based primarily on race.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Re: Those "tolerant" liberals strike again!

Originally Posted by kbohip

Not surprised at all with the idiocy the Democratic party has now reached. I'll bet half of them thought he was a descendant of Groucho. Karl Marx could never win a Presidential election running as a Democrat anyway though. He's not black/latino/female. He'd have no chance with all of the Democratic voters that are not concerned with race but make their voting decisions based primarily on race.

In today's United States calling MARX a centrist isn't a stretch at all. How many far lefties call themselves centrist and even right of center? The answer is just about all of them.

You're right about the democrats choosing candidates for the highest office based on race and gender. The minority vote and the gender vote is the only way they can win. LBJ's great society gave birth to what is now the Entitlement Nation we live in.

Re: Those "tolerant" liberals strike again!

It's pretty funny watching the moronic leftists trying to figure out how to navigate their brave new world that they've forced down everyone's throat. There's so much wrong in this article it's not even funny. What a FU'ed up world it is now! Oh, and if you're a male that identifies as a female but considers him..err herself a lesbian, I have found the perfect school for you!

Last month, Mount Holyoke College announced a more far-reaching policy: It would admit all academically qualified students regardless of their anatomy or self-proclaimed gender, except for those biologically male at birth who still identify as male. In a list that reflects just how much traditional notions of gender have been upended, Mount Holyoke said eligible candidates now include anyone born biologically female, whether identified as woman, man, neither or "other" and anyone born biologically male who identifies as a woman or "other." The school president, Lynn Pasquerella, said she and her officers made the decision after concluding it was an issue of civil rights.

Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

Well, the feminists and liberals got what they wanted and woman can now fight right alongside men in the military...or can they?

The first three women to successfully complete the Marine’s Combat Endurance Test (CET) have been asked to leave the rigorous, infantry officers training course for failing to meet the physical standards required....

But, according to an analysis done by the Washington Free Beacon, there are interest groups in D.C. that are trying to get the Marine Corps to change the standards in the training course to help pave the way for women to fill combat roles.

Gee. Who could have seen this coming? I'll also note that there were three men that failed the training course as well. So since feminism has taught us that men and women are complete equals, why will it be only the women that will inevitably get looser standards for training courses? Why should the "equal" men have higher standards to fill? This is an easy problem to solve if you think about it. Women have trouble carrying the 100 pound plus loads. I think the army should hire personal male assistants for the female soldiers to carry those heavy loads for them.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

Originally Posted by kbohip

Well, the feminists and liberals got what they wanted and woman can now fight right alongside men in the military...or can they?

The first three women to successfully complete the Marine’s Combat Endurance Test (CET) have been asked to leave the rigorous, infantry officers training course for failing to meet the physical standards required....

But, according to an analysis done by the Washington Free Beacon, there are interest groups in D.C. that are trying to get the Marine Corps to change the standards in the training course to help pave the way for women to fill combat roles.

Gee. Who could have seen this coming? I'll also note that there were three men that failed the training course as well. So since feminism has taught us that men and women are complete equals, why will it be only the women that will inevitably get looser standards for training courses? Why should the "equal" men have higher standards to fill? This is an easy problem to solve if you think about it. Women have trouble carrying the 100 pound plus loads. I think the army should hire personal male assistants for the female soldiers to carry those heavy loads for them.

Under pressure from the White House they will lower the standards for everybody so the women can fit in. I think that's what the Army did.

The way I understand it's a small percentage of women within the ranks making all the noise. Spurred on by feminists, politicans, MSM and the insanely politically correct on the outside. If the day ever comes I wonder what the reaction will be when large numbers of women start coming home in body bags.

If and when it happens the women should be segregated from the men, female units. We need to see how they compare to the men in actual combat. If they can't do the damn job on their own men shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of a sexually integrated fighting force.

Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

Originally Posted by tucker

Under pressure from the White House they will lower the standards for everybody so the women can fit in. I think that's what the Army did.

The way I understand it's a small percentage of women within the ranks making all the noise. Spurred on by feminists, politicans, MSM and the insanely politically correct on the outside. If the day ever comes I wonder what the reaction will be when large numbers of women start coming home in body bags.

If and when it happens the women should be segregated from the men, female units. We need to see how they compare to the men in actual combat. If they can't do the damn job on their own men shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of a sexually integrated fighting force.

It's very dangerous politically correct stupidity.

I don't know Tuck, from what I've seen of women working together, I don't think arming all of them and then putting them all together in one unit would turn out so well. There would be casualties, and it wouldn't necessarily be from the enemy!

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

Originally Posted by kbohip

I don't know Tuck, from what I've seen of women working together, I don't think arming all of them and then putting them all together in one unit would turn out so well. There would be casualties, and it wouldn't necessarily be from the enemy!

Women, when put in a group, tend to synchronize their menstrual cycles. An entire company of armed women on their periods? Better put a large fence up to keep them penned until its over. The survivors can bury the others. LMAO

Re: Those "tolerant", naive liberals strike again!

Originally Posted by thewanderer

Women, when put in a group, tend to synchronize their menstrual cycles. An entire company of armed women on their periods? Better put a large fence up to keep them penned until its over. The survivors can bury the others. LMAO

Originally Posted by tucker

^^^ that's perfect time to send them into combat the enemy wouldn't stand a chance...

Lol, yeah, this is THE best argument I've seen to date for women on the front line!

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Re: Those "tolerant" liberals strike again!

Robin Kniech, the council's first openly gay member, said she was most worried about a local franchise generating "corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination." She was first to raise Chick-fil-A leaders' politics during a Tuesday committee hearing.

The normally routine process of approving an airport concession deal has taken a rare political turn. The Business Development Committee on Tuesday stalled the seven-year deal with a new franchisee of the popular chain for two weeks.

Should the committee reject the lease, an individual member — if one is willing — could introduce the concession deal in the full council. Ten of the 13 members attended Tuesday's meeting, and none rose to defend Chick-fil-A, although some didn't weigh in.

"We can do better than this brand in Denver at our airport, in my estimation," new member Jolon Clark said.

What a bunch of intolerant crap from the tolerant crowd! Never has Chick-fil-a discriminated against it's employees or customers, yet horror of all horrors, the CEO of Chick-fil-a offered his own, honest opinion on gay marriage, and it wasn't the opinion that the tolerant crowd says it's supposed to be! So now, anyone who might have actually wanted to eat at Chick-fil-a, gay or not, won't be able to because the CEO is a boogeyman and hurts a lesbian councilwoman's feelings. "Hi, I'm tolerant, and I'm going to tell you where you can eat!"

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.